Look at that gray line going down – The data above show a remarkable decline in NJ’s chemical industry production and employment. The largest single component of NJ’s manufacturing sector is the chemical industry.

In my prior post, I emphasized the key fact that NJ’s manufacturing sector was in steep decline, particularly during the last 5 years of the Christie Administration, declining by an average of 5.1% per year.

The chemical industry decline comes at the same time of Gov. Christie’s pro-business “regulatory relief” and “voluntary partnership” enforcement policy, so industry lobbyists can not trot out the standard Big Lie that environmental regulation caused the declines.

That period of steep decline also corresponds with the rise and tremendous growth of the natural gas fracking industry, which has produced a glut of gas in the region.

Because the chemical industry uses natural gas as a production input, we were assured – loudly and repeatedly – by the energy and chemical industry lobbyists that the growth of fracking and declines in the price of natural gas would spur a “renaissance” in chemical manufacturing, fueling huge new growth.

“Governor Christie recognizes that New Jersey benefits enormously from natural gas production,” said Hal Bozarth, executive director of CCNJ. “Adequate, affordable natural gas supplies help sustain thousands of high-paying chemistry industry jobs. Natural gas is also important to more affordable electricity for New Jersey’s manufacturers, small businesses, and citizens.

“U.S. shale gas production is spurring a manufacturing renaissance in the country, and New Jersey can potentially benefit through economic development and job growth in the state,” Bozarth continued.

The actual data on NJ’s chemical industry’s production and employment during the boom in fracking totally contradicts those exaggerated industry claims.

So, where is the “manufacturing renaissance” Hal? LOOK AT THE ACTUAL DATA!

(Source: NJ Dept. of Labor)

NJ receives just a handful of temporary construction jobs and few economic benefits from all the fracking pipelines the energy industry wants to build.

The costs far exceed any benefits.

NJ could even wind up even exporting gas to lucrative foreign markets. A point we take up in part 3.

Let me begin this post by stating very clearly that I know virtually nothing about the technical aspects of gas pipeline safety and that I have no intention of scaring anybody or opportunistically using disasters to advance an agenda (for context, see Point Pleasant explosion and Stafford explosion).

I post this information so that perhaps those that do have expertise or regulatory responsibility – or media – can investigate what, from a layman’s perspective, looks troubling. I really have no idea if this is a big deal or a trifle – or if the problem has been solved and risks are minimal.

I was recently given credible information about a gas safety issue - including a fire that caused major damage and a lawsuit – related to a defective gas valve that was installed in approximately 70,000 homes and business by the South Jersey Gas Co.

Based on my review of sworn testimony to BPU, is sure seems that neither BPU nor South Jersey Gas are in any hurry to properly diagnose the risks or replace the defective gas valves.

Testimony shows that the problem was discovered not by any SJG or BPU safety program, but by the random discovery of a gas leak that led to a fire with significant property damage.

After the problem was discovered, BPU dod not require SJG to conduct a rigorous safety analysis to determine the full extent and risks of the problem.

SJG initially did not fully investigate the problem and proposed and apparently received BPU approval to replace the defective values – which already have caused fires and explosions with extensive property damage – over an extended 15 year period!

I do not have final documents to be able to understand how this problem was resolved by the final BPU Order or what the current status is.

My source suggests that:

someone in the press should take on the info from Deptford and apply it to an overall analysis of what has happened since then, etc and whether any more valves have been more recently replaced, at what pace, bpu involvement, etc…

Here is what happened, per SJG testimony – I have fill document as a PDF and am unable to post a link but will provide upon request:

IX. Rockford Eclipse Valve Replacement Program

It is necessary for South Jersey to remove and replace defectively designed riser valves that are installed at approximately 70,000 of the Company’s customers’ residences and businesses to ensure public safety and system reliability. The valves that need to be replaced were manufactured, distributed and sold to South Jersey and other utilities by a combination of the following companies: Rockford-Eclipse, Eclipse, Inc., Mueller Company, and Mueller Group Ltd. in the 1980s and early 1990s.

The valves were also installed at customer locations during that time frame. Based upon several failures associated with these valves, including one that led to significant property damage, and subsequent testing and analysis, South Jersey has determined that these riser valves (“Rockford Eclipse valves”) were defectively designed. To ensure public safety these Rockford Eclipse valves must be replaced.

At the time of this filing, South Jersey has experienced three failures of Rockford Eclipse valves at residential locations and without the proactive measures the Company took when the design defect was discovered, it is possible that more failures could have occurred. The first incident occurred in February 2005 when a Company employee responded to a leak call at a residence in Voorhees, NJ. In response to the leak, the employee attempted to shut off the flow of gas to the residence by operating the Rockford Eclipse valve. In doing so, the Rockford Eclipse valve’s stem blew out causing a release of gas and subsequent fire.This caused extensive damage at the property. While this failure was the first time South Jersey experienced a problem with the Rockford Eclipse valve, two subsequent failures, testing on the valves and opinions contained in expert reports produced in litigation led South Jersey to conclude that these valves must be identified and replaced so that this type of incident would not be repeated.

The second known failure occurred in July 2005 when a homeowner operated a Rockford Eclipse valve to perform maintenance inside his Deptford, NJ home. Similar to the first failure, when the Rockford Eclipse valve was operated, the stem blew out of the valve. Fortunately though, this failure did not lead to any personal injury or damage to the homeowner’s property. In response to the failure, South Jersey shut off gas service to the home and replaced the valve.

In March 2008, a contractor at a third residence in Berlin, NJ operated a Rockford Eclipse valve, again causing the valve stem to blow out of the valve. South Jersey responded, shut off gas service to the home and replaced the valve. Again, fortunately, there was no property damage or personal injury related to this valve failure. At this point, South Jersey still had approximately 70,000 Rockford Eclipse valves installed in its service territory.

These three failures represented the only known problems that the Company experienced with the Rockford Eclipse valves.

As a result of the extensive damage purportedly caused by the first failure of the Rockford Eclipse valve, litigation was commenced by the property owner and others against South Jersey and the manufacturers of the Rockford Eclipse valve in Superior Court of New Jersey – Law Division, Camden County. This matter was captioned McKee Duncan, et als. v. South Jersey Gas Company, et als. and docketed as CAM-L-686-07 (“Duncan litigation”). During the course of the Duncan litigation, specifically in 2008, South Jersey learned for the first time that the failure of the Rockford Eclipse valve was caused by a flaw in the design of the valve. To our knowledge, the valves had caused no problems during the first twenty years or so of their lives following installation. This design defect was revealed in expert reports submit in the Duncan litigation. This design defect caused the Rockford Eclipse valve to corrode internally and seize up, which prevented proper operation. In addition to the internal corrosion problem, the Rockford Eclipse valve does not have a nut opposite the valve plug which would allow a service technician to loosen the valve if it seizes.

Although the valves present no safety hazard in their current (dormant) state, they become problematic when used for their intended purpose, which is to stop the flow of gas.

Precautionary actions have been and continue to be taken by South Jersey to mitigate future damage from valves malfunctioning. We believe the problem is limited to Rockford Eclipse valves and does not extend to valves manufactured by companies other than Rockford-Eclipse, Eclipse, Inc. Mueller Group, Ltd. and Mueller Company.

In response to this situation, South Jersey has conducted a survey to identify the location of Rockford Eclipse valves throughout its service territory. This survey identified 69,167 locations as having a Rockford Eclipse valve on the service riser. Yellow plastic safety/warning caps stating “Warning – Tampering subject to prosecution” were then purchased and installed on each identified Rockford Eclipse valve to deter unauthorized personnel from operating the Rockford Eclipse valve.

Once tagged, South Jersey commenced its plan to replace all of the defective valves.

Pursuant to this plan, each Rockford Eclipse valve in the South Jersey distribution system will be inspected by no later than April 30, 2011 to determine evidence of atmospheric corrosion. Valves which are graded as poor in this survey will receive the highest priority in the replacement plan. Following completion of the survey, a plan for prioritizing and replacing all Rockford Eclipse valves will be developed and provided to the Board by no later than July 31, 2011.

Here are excerpts of the sworn BPU testimony to get the ball rolling – very troubling flaws revealed (link)

In response to data requests requesting all information related to the RE valve situation, SJG did not provide any documentation indicating that it conducted a formal analysis to determine if its proposed program was a prudent course of action. For example, apparently no analysis was performed to determine:

The probability of future incidents verses the expenditure involved in making a wholesale replacement of the valves

The proper timeframe (i.e.the proposed program’s 15 years to complete) for any such replacement program

Because the Company did not conduct any such analyses, McFadden Consulting is not able to determine if the proposed program is reasonable or prudent. In other words, McFadden Consulting is unable to either take issue with the Company’s proposed Rockford Eclipse gas service riser valve replacement program or to endorse the program as being adequate.

SJG has indicated that it will formalize its plan for prioritizing and replacing all RE valves and provide such plan to the Board of Public Utilities no later than July 31, 2011.42 McFadden Consulting recommends the Board require the Company to prepare a formal analysis as described above as a part of any such plan submission

[Update: Here is the most recent BPU documentI was just provided, after this post was written. I am reading it now. ** The testimony seems to focus exclusively on costs not safety, but I found this interesting – safety plan is secret:

Q - How was the 15-year time frame chosen?

A – The 15-year time frame is in conjunction with the Plan submitted by South Jersey to the BPU Bureau of Pipeline Safety, entitled “Summary of Actions to Date and Path Forward”, dated May 20, 2009. It was submitted on a confidential basis and will be provided to the parties to this proceeding when appropriate safeguards are in place. ~~~ end update ]

There’s been quite a lot of press coverage and expressions of outrage over the Christie DEP’s sweetheart deal with Exxon Mobil regarding decades of pollution from the Bayway refinery that caused ”Natural Resource Damages” (NRD).

The settlement was apparently leaked to the NY Times, who ran a huge story on Friday. I assume it was leaked by some one from DEP or the AG’s Office who was outraged by the sellout.

To claim that Superior Court Judge Hogan found Exxon liable for NRD and use that finding to imply with confidence that he would render an opinion that hit Exxon with almost $9 BILLLION in damages is absurd and misleading (especially given Hogan’s prior role as chief counsel to the pro-business and anti-regulatory Whitman DEP Commissioner).

Worse, to claim that DEP has a “complex formula” for calculating Natural Resource Damages (NRD) is simply false and obscures the critical point.

Bureaucracies shield themselves from this kind of abuse of enforcement discretion via regulations – with numeric standards and methodologies.

If DEP had regulations and standards in place for quantifying NRD damages, the dirty Exxon deal could not have been done.

Trenton — In a stunning legal setback, the State of New Jersey cannot recover damages from polluters in what may be thousands of contaminated groundwater cases, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The problem stems from the state’s failure to adopt regulations governing how to calculate “natural resources damages” (NRD) for polluted drinking water. As a result, polluters can avoid compensating the public for treatment of tainted groundwater, replacement water supply lines, drilling new wells and associated damages — leaving taxpayers with uncalculated costs.

On August 24, 2007, a state Superior Court dismissed with prejudice an attempt by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to recover a natural resource damage claim involving benzene and toluene contamination of private wells in the Hillwood Lakes area of Ewing Township. (N.J. Dept. of Envtl. Prot. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., Docket No. MER-L-2933-02 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. Aug. 24, 2007)). The Court found that DEP did not follow the rule making process to establish, by regulation, a reliable formula for calculating natural resources damages. In the absence of regulations, the Court also found DEP lacked adequate scientific support to proceed on a case-by-case basis.

More recently, after the Appellate Division struck down a DEP NRD claim, we petitioned the NJ Comptroller to intervene and require that DEP adopt regulations EXACTLY to AVOID this kind of political abuse, see:

Trenton — The State of New Jersey is forfeiting hundreds of millions of dollars in damages from polluters in contaminated groundwater cases, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), which has asked for a review of the program by the state Comptroller. The state’s failure to adopt regulations governing how to calculate “natural resources damages” (NRD) for polluted drinking water has contributed to its inability sustain assessments against polluters. [...]

“This mess was wholly preventable but even now the state is not taking the measures everyone agrees are needed,” Wolfe added. “It appears that we have utterly lost the capacity for enlightened environmental leadership in New Jersey.”

PEER is asking the Comptroller to review the performance of the NRD, determine the extent to which taxpayers are not attaining full NRD recoveries and make recommendations for putting the program back on track in a more transparent and accountable fashion.

The Corzine DEP under Lisa Jackson failed to adopt regulations, as did the anti-regulatory Christie administration.

Those failures to adopt rules are what allowed this most recent Christie Bayway abuse to occur – a predictable and predicted abuse.

Finally, to whine that the revenue from the settlement will go to the State budget and not to natural resource restoration and public compensation for lost use of natural resources is disgraceful.

As I’ve written, the introduced version of the Open Space Resolution SCR84 (see lines 31 – 33 on page 3) would have Constitutionally dedicated NRD settlement funds to the Open Space fund, but environmentalists OPPOSED Constitutionally dedicating this funds.

I repeat: that is one of the biggest blunders of all time, as both the Passaic and now the Exxon settlement prove.

Environmentalists need to spend more time working on what DEP actually does that in the media.

Like almost everything else in the US and world economy, NJ was once a pioneer in pipe manufacturing.

Not any more.

Like so many industries NJ pioneered, shortsighted corporate profit driven decisions and failure to innovate and invest led to decline and obsolescence (and export of US jobs to third world countries where corporations could exploit labor and the environment with impunity, a well documented process that began over 40 years ago, known as “deindustrialization“, which would later become known as “global trade” and “financialization”.

During a Senate Environment Committee hearing, Sweeney emphasized that he had done his homework and strongly supported off shore wind development based on the number of manufacturing jobs it could produce in NJ.

In March 2011, BPU was supposed to publish the wind regulations. The fact that the BPU has not published regulations is a clear statement from the Administration that they’re opposed to wind energy, at the cost of the economy of the state of NJ.

We would have captured 1,000 manufacturing jobs in this industry. We were so far ahead of other states, up and down the east coast.

Gov. Christie’s failure to follow through on off shore wind development cost NJ over 1,000 good manufacturing jobs.

So, given those failures in wind, clean energy, and advanced manufacturing, what is Sweeney focusing his political energies and investing his political capital on?

A handful of temporary construction jobs installing another natural gas pipeline, though the Pinelands, no less.

Senate President Sweeney recently defended his role – in what the Asbury Park Press editorial Board called ” a new low in sleaziness” – in support of the South Jersey Gas Co. pipeline through the Pinelands, see:

NEPTUNE – Senate President Stephen Sweeney and Gov. Chris Christie have had some famous disagreements, but not over Christie’s pick for a seat on the Pinelands Commission.

Sweeney, D-Gloucester, says he has no apologies for actions he took that led to the Senate Judiciary Committee approving Ocean City resident Robert Barr in an 8-4-1 vote Tuesday. [...]

“I am in favor of the pipeline, I absolutely am. I’m not backing away from that,’’ Sweeney said. “I’m not against the Pinelands. I want to save the jobs.’’ [...]

Sweeney said the Pinelands will be fine if developer South Jersey Gas wins final approval because the company’s application is laden with beefed-up environmental standards.

“I had South Jersey Gas jump through hurdles, and for one reason: They’re going to make a lot of money selling gas,’’ Sweeney said.

So, Senator Sweeney, it’s jobs, eh?

Or is it the corporate profits?

Or is it really all about the “hurdles” SJG jumped through (a euphemisms for campaign contribution shakedowns? Kickbacks?)?

False Promise On Jobs

First, let’s take a look at the jobs claims.

A recent Report by the Chair of the Department of City and Regional Planning Department at Cornell (the program I attended) about the job creation associated with fracking is instructive for looking at the economic geography of the pipeline industry as well, see: The false promise of fracking and local jobs

But opening the door to fracking doesn’t lead to the across-the-board economic boon most people assume. We need to consider where oil and gas industry jobs are created and who benefits from the considerable investments that make shale development possible. A look at the job numbers gives us a much better idea of what kind of economic boost comes with fracking, how its economic benefits are distributed and why both can be easily misunderstood.

The Cornell Report concludes that: 1) far fewer jobs are created than claimed by industry and their paid cheerleaders; 2) there is little impact on the in-state unemployment rate; and 3) there are small in-state economic benefits.

Ironically, literally adding insult to injury, the Report concludes that the majority of the few good jobs that are created by fracking primarily benefit Texas not the Marcellus shale states where the drilling is occurring that suffer all the public health and environmental impacts and public health risks & harms:

This [data] tells us that the production sites aren’t necessarily the places that get the economic boost. The most skilled workers on drilling crews are from Texas and Oklahoma and they return home to spend their earnings.

So, how many NJ based jobs would the SJG Pinelands pipeline create and how are this jobs and economic benefits distributed?

What jobs and economic benefits does NJ receive? Are they commensurate with the costs? Who wins, who loses?

(And don’t think I didn’t notice how Rutgers is touting job creation associated with fossil infrastructure, while Cornell is critiquing and demolishing fossil energy industry jobs and economic claims – could that be related to energy industry contributions to Rutgers? – Good questions for another day!)

The pipeline would cost about $100 million and the BL England plant re-powering about $400 million. So this is a $500 million investment that would be paid for by NJ residents and businesses.

What benefits would NJ get for that significant investment?

No new manufacturing jobs would be created in this $500 million pipeline and power plant project.

That is virtually no return on a massive investment that NJ ratepayers will finance.

In terms of retaining existing jobs, that is an incredibly tiny jobs to investment ratio: a cost of some $8.3 million per job retained!

And just like fracking, the good manufacturing jobs are located in Texas and Louisiana -

According to US Economic Census data, Texas is #1 in pipe manufacturing jobs and Louisiana #2, with over 10,000 jobs.

Meanwhile, NJ pipe manufacturing jobs are hardly visible – just 250 – 499 jobs at 18 NJ plants, with just 4 of this plants employing more than 20 workers.

According to the NY Times, the steel manufacturing jobs from all the fracking and pipeline expansions are few, and they are located in Ohio steel mills. Few new additional jobs are projected due to heavy automation:

In Canton, Timken executives said they expected to complete the Faircrest mill’s additions by 2014, and production will increase to 925,000 tons annually from 750,000 tons this year. Mr. Miraglia said 425 people worked at the plant and that automation in the new buildings most likely meant that few if any jobs would be added.

So, what does all this tell us?

1) There is virtually no real strategic economic development or energy planning going on in NJ State Government.

Instead, there are Pipe Dreams and “new lows in sleaziness”.

2) What little economic development policy there is is reactionary and limited to costly and ineffective corporate subsidies that reflect no larger strategic vision.

Energy policy is driven by existing fossil fuel dominated producers and distributors and the narrow and blinkered policies of ratepayer concerns.

3) We are missing huge opportunities to develop good manufacturing and construction jobs in energy efficiency and renewable nervy industries.

4) In addition to fatal failure to focus on jobs and economic development using long standing traditional methodologies and policy tools, the climate change imperative and existing economic tools like the social costs of carbon are completely ignored.

5) Therefore, it seems apparent to me that the supporters of alternative energy also are missing opportunities to make effective economic development arguments and to critique the aforementioned flaws.

Sometimes, a good man of conscience and integrity - which I believe you are – needs to take a step back from the daily hubbub and reflect on the essence of things.

This is one of those moments.

As a good man of conscience and integrity, I now urge you to do so, and, upon reflection, withdraw your name from Senate consideration as a Pinelands Commissioner. Here’s why:

I’ve listened closely to your good friend Senator Van Drew’s praise of you as a man and a public servant. Indeed, you have struggled and overcome obstacles and achieved many good things, both for yourself and your community.

And that is precisely why I urge you to withdraw your name from consideration.

The context for your nomination by the Governor is deeply troubling.

You personally had nothing to do with creating this context, but you are immersed in its fabric and caught in the crossfire.

You now must make a choice. Your choice will have consequences. Listen to reason and follow your conscience in doing so.

Your confirmation by the Senate would do lasting damage to individuals and institutions, including yourself.

I am certain that you would never cause this kind of damage, but your decisions now may contribute to it.

First of all, the Pinelands Commissioner you would replace, Mr. Jackson, is a man of integrity. He has served the Commission well for a decade. He wants to continue that service.

Commissioners have routinely been reappointed when their terms expire. The Governor’s proposed replacement of Mr. Jackson’s is obviously in retaliation for his NO vote on the South Jersey Gas pipeline. Whetether you agree with this or not is irrelevant – it is widely perceived to be true.

Your appointment to the Commission under these circumstances would forever taint you personally – you could not serve effectively as a Commissioner when your fellow Commissioners and the public would never forget and blame you for the Gov.’s scheme.

Second, your confirmation by the Senate would undermine the independence of all members of State and regional boards and commissions by sending a message that if you defy the will of the Governor or powerful political interests, you will be replaced.

That is redolent of the old Stalinist Soviet Union.

Do you want your name associated with that?

Third, your confirmation by the Senate would taint the Senate itself, rendering its Constitutional advise and consent role subordinate to the power politics of the Governor.

The stench of these politics would stick to your skin forever.

Do you really want to go through public life under these conditions?

Is all this damage worth a handful of very temporary jobs?

Reflect on that, then take a drive through the Pinelands forests and do the right thing.

The US Army Corps of Engineers, in a Friday afternoon move designed to minimize news coverage, issued a final dredging permit for the controversial BL England power plant in Upper Township, NJ.

The purpose of the permit is:

R.C. Cape May Holdings, LLC proposal [is] to perform hydraulic maintenance dredging to the B.L. England Generation Plant’s intake and outfall located in Great Egg Harbor Bay at Upper Township, Cape May County, New Jersey. The applicant’s stated purpose and need for the proposed work is to ensure an adequate supply of condenser cooling water for the intake, to avoid sediment re-suspension at the outflow and to ensure an adequate mixing regime for thermal discharge. A ten year maintenance permit is being requested for the proposed activities.

We learned of this draft permit very late in the process and were able to submit only cursory general comments, which is the main reason why we asked for an extension of the public comment period (for our comments, see):

Our requests strictly followed the criteria in NJ DEP rules to justify an extension or a request for public hearing. The Corps denied that extension request.

The Corps also denied our request to hold a public hearing, but provided no rationale for either denial. I am not familiar with the Corps rules and the basis for reviewing such requests, but the Corps seems to have just blown the requests off with no basis stated.

But none of that comes as a surprise, as the Corps is not generally perceived to be enthusiastic about dealing with environmental critics in public hearings.

But, what I was surprised by – perhaps because I have little experience in dealing with the Corps permit process – was how the Corps’ decision completely ignored President Obama’s Climate Adaptation Policy, issued on Nov. 1, 2013, so it was binding on the Corps, see:

The new Order included a proposed new Federal Flood Risk Management Standard that would require federal agencies to select one of three approaches for establishing the flood elevation and hazard area they use in siting, design, and construction:

Use data and methods informed by best-available, actionable climate science;

Build two feet above the 100-year (1%-annual-chance) flood elevation for standard projects, and three feet above for critical buildings like hospitals and evacuation centers; or

Build to the 500-year (0.2%-annual-chance) flood elevation.

I wonder if the BL England intake structures, facility, and dredging plans – or the Corps permit – consider these standards?

3) the plant is located in a coastal hazard zone and is vulnerable to climate change driven sea level rise and storm surge. The issue of coastal vulnerability and all forms of energy and critical infrastructure is a hugely controversial and significant issue to the people of NJ.

Even though the new Federal Flood Risk Management Standard is not legally in effect yet, the Corps had an obligation, under the prior Obama 2013 Executive Order, to consider these kind of climate change vulnerabilities and risks.

Without discussion, the Corps dismissed them, and they spread the blame and pointed fingers at their sister federal agencies for ignoring them too:

No objections to the issuance of this permit were received from other Federal resource agencies (United States Environmental Protection Agency, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service and the National Park Service) concerning the effects of the proposed work on resources within their jurisdictions.

So, the entire federal government simply ignored President Obama’s Executive Order on adaptation to climate change – an Order that they are legally bound to implement.

And they did this just at the time Obama issued another Order and proposed new Federal Flood Risk Management Standards.

There is some speculation in the NY Times story that the State’s Settlement was suspect because it was reached just before a Superior Court judge was about to issue a decision, which the Times’ sources believe would had been significantly larger than what the State settled for.

I disagree with that assessment because I’ve had limited experience with the judge, Mike Hogan, who was Whitman DEP Commissioner Bob Shinn’s legal counselor. At the time, I was a legislative analyst at DEP. Hogan and I had a dispute over a bill to extend the life of the Cape May landfill, in violation of a federally approved Settlement that required closure. I noted the conflict with federal law, and Hogan threw me out of his office in disgust, nearly shouting that the federal government could not limit a State legislature.

The Whitman DEP was strongly anti-regulatory and pro-business.

My take on Hogan was that he was legally conservative, out of the Federalist Society mold, and not likely to be the kind of judge to stretch the law to hold a major corporation accountable.

The State’s lawsuit sought $8.9 BILLION in restoration and compensation for toxic pollution of over 1,500 acres of soil, wetlands, fish & wildlife, and marshlands:

“Today, many of these dredge fill areas still look and smell like petroleum waste dumps,” the report continues. “Spilled materials from pipeline ruptures, tank failures or overflows, and explosions have resulted in widespread groundwater, soil and sediment contamination.”

The attorney general’s office said in its brief in November that the sites had been “adversely affected by or buried under the discharge of hazardous substances,” including over 600 identified chemicals.

Although the NRD settlement money is supposed to go to ecological restoration and public compensation for lost use of the natural resources, the Christie Administration is likely to divert the settlement proceeds into the General Fund to pay for Christie’s multi-billion tax cuts for corporations. That’s what they recently did in diverting $140 million of a recent $190 million settlement on the Passaic River dioxin contamination.

As we’ve written previously, remarkably, although State environmental groups have blasted that $140 million Passaic River settlement diversion, NJ’s “Keep It Green Coalition” opposed Constitutionally dedicating these NRD settlement funds to the Open Space Fund.

So the Bayway settlement, even though for just 3 cents on the dollar, shines a bright like on the bad judgement and HUGE KIG missed opportunity - one of the biggest blunders of all time.

This is a breaking story. My purpose here was merely to put the deal in some NJ context.

We will be providing additional thoughts on this matter as the Settlement documents are made public.

Divide and Conquer: In politics and sociology, divide and rule (or divide and conquer) (derived from Greek: διαίρει καὶ βασίλευε, diaírei kaì basíleue) is gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into pieces that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. The concept refers to a strategy that breaks up existing power structures and prevents smaller power groups from linking up. ~~~ Wiki

“Shooting the messenger” or “killing the messenger” is a metaphoric phrase used to describe the act of lashing out at the (blameless) bearer of bad news. ~~~ Wiki

Tom Johnson at NJ Spotlight reports today on the latest development in the open space funding clusterfuck, the release of Governor Christie’s budget message:

… The budget proposal also allocates $32.7 million to programs previously funded by corporate business taxes — cleanup of toxic sites and underground storage tanks, as well as an assortment of water-related programs. The administration’s figure is down from $103 million in the current budget, which led some to oppose the ballot question.

“As we expected, there were deep cuts in water resources, site remediation, and land-use regulations,’’ said Bill Wolfe, director of the New Jersey Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. Wolfe was one of the biggest critics of the ballot question for precisely those reasons.

Given that we made the prediction, I need to update my own most recent engagement in this snake pit:

What better way to divide a community than to engage a $1 million PR campaign to mislead people, inflate expectations of future funding, prohibit discussion of any negative consequences, and then dramatically slash historic resource levels and force each member group to compete with each other for very scarce resources?

Is there a more destructive dynamic possible?

It didn’t used to be this way: planning and regulation complemented open space acquisition. But how Smith and KIG have chosen to finance open space has forced competition and conflict, creating collateral damage instead of mutual support. ~~~ “Open Space Funding: Holy Grail – or White Whale?

Trenton — A November ballot measure would amend the New Jersey constitution to siphon $10 billion out of park facilities maintenance as well as toxic site cleanup and state water infrastructure over the next 30 years solely to finance real estate purchases for open space. Billed as a “green” proposition, it would devastate bread and butter environmental programs while lining the pockets of some key proponents, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).

“This is utterly irresponsible eco-policy cynically masquerading as an investment in our future,” stated New Jersey PEER Director Bill Wolfe, pointing out that it will likely trigger layoffs of state Department of Environmental Protection staff working in both waste and water programs. “Green Acres and open space preservation are good ideas but not to the exclusion of everything else.”

Well, here we are now, after the tremendous (Pyrrhic – or “White Whale“) “victory” on a dedicated source of open space funding - listen to the angry voices now:

I could provide many more such angry quotes from people who are shocked by the cuts to various programs that were traditionally funded at much higher levels from open space funds.

And people still have yet to figure out what the devastating impacts will be to core DEP programs, who have suffered over $80 million in cuts to CBT funded programs – a topic I will write about as FY’16 budget details emerge.

Unfortunately, a lot of angry people are mis-focused and blaming the wrong people.

They are all saying “I didn’t vote for these cuts in the November ballot” and are attacking the implementation legislation.

But they DID vote for these cuts.

They were duped, misled, and/or lied to by the Keep It Green Coalition.

Those, like myself and others, who tried to bring the facts to public light were shouted down, attacked, and or marginalized and ignored.

The KIG Coalition should be the target of people’s wrath.

All these cuts and the bad blood they have created was predicted. We predicted it. We tried to stop it.

As we previously noted, the Dupont Corporation’s proposed spinoff of the Chemours company, including plans to shift liability for hundreds of millions of dollars in toxic site cleanup costs from Dupont to the new Chemours group, has prompted EPA national review, see:

Based on these concerns, on January 21, 2015, Pompton Lakes residents wrote EPA Region 2 Administrator Judy Enck a letter requesting EPA review of the Chemours spinoff and for concrete assurances that Dupont would continue to be held responsible for cleanup, including complying with RCRA requirements to demonstrate financial assurance to pay for cleanup and at least 30 years of post cleanup site monitoring and maintenance.

Walter Mudgan, USEPA region 2

In an astonishing February 6, 2015 reply, Walter Mudgan, the head of EPA Region 2′s Superfund and RCRA cleanup programs admitted that EPA had not enforced RCRA “financial assurance” requirements for the full costs of cleanup for 23 years since those requirements were included in a 1992 EPA RCRA Corrective Action Permit.

Mugdan wrote:

The first question in your January 21 email concerns the dollar amount of financial assurance for the site. There is not a specific dollar amount of financial assurance for corrective action at the site under the federal permit at this time, since the permittee is not as yet required to provide such assurance. However, the Chemours Form 10 filing with the federal Securities and Exchange Commission (referenced in your January 21 email) contains an estimate of $116 million for remediation activities at the site, of which $60 million is estimated to be spent on remediation activities at the site in the next two to three years, including the dredging and other remediation activities contained in the proposed Acid Brook Delta permit modification.

Regarding questions 2-4 in your email, first, please note that the DuPont Pompton Lakes RCRA permit provides that financial assurance must be demonstrated to EPA for “approved” corrective measures. The proposed RCRA Acid Brook Delta permit modification contains corrective measures, including dredging within Pompton Lake and remediation of adjacent Upland Soils Areas, which will become “approved” measures when the permit modification becomes effective in final form. Within thirty days thereafter, the permittee is required to demonstrate to EPA in writing that it has financial assurance for the approved corrective measures. The permittee’s submission should contain a cost estimate for the required work, including post remediation care requirements, and identify the method the company selects to provide the assurance. Since the permittee’s financial assurance submission for the corrective action has not yet been made, EPA cannot at this time evaluate the nature and content of the assurance.

[Would a mortgage bank not enforce homeowner's insurance requirements for 23 years? Could you get your car registered for 23 years without insurance? Ever try Mugdan's argument on a cop that asked for driver's license, registration & insurance? How many small contractors get let off the hook for posting performance bonds?

How much money did Dupont save by avoiding demonstrating $116 million financial assurance for 23 years? The financial assurance instruments may vary, but they all cost something. Plus, if EPA had Dupont's cash in hand for a complete cleanup, wouldn't that provide significant additional leverage to get Dupont to move a little quicker, under threat that EPA would just take their money and do the cleanup themselves?]

Mugdan’s bureaucratic obfuscation, about what the lawyers euphemistically call the timing and applicability of regulatory requirements, ignores the facts that Dupont has been conducting cleanup under the 1992 permit for 20 years, and that financial assurance requirements were established by EPA in the 1992 RCRA Corrective Action HSWA permit.

Mudgan’s shocking admission about failure to enforce basic requirements prompted outrage among Pompton Lakes residents, who for many years have complained that DEP and EPA have not strictly enforced cleanup laws on Dupont.

Given USEPA’s historic failure to enforce corrective action financial assurance requirements under RCRA/HSWA and EPA regulations; the enforcement options articulated in USEPA Guidance; USEPA’s reservation of discretion in the DuPont RCRA permit to “modify the enclosed Compliance Schedule should additional information become available that may impact DuPont’s ability to meet a specific scheduling Due Date or Due Dates”; and the new information legal and financial risks posed by the DuPont announced spinoff of Chemours, we respectfully demand that EPA must immediately issue an Enforcement Order to mandate demonstration of financial assurance for all corrective action, closure, and post closure monitoring.

We were shocked by Mudgan’s reply and learning that EPA had failed to enforce these basic permit requirements for 23 years.

EPA will now need to move quickly to assure that EPA has liquid assets that can be secured for site cleanup in the event that the Chemours spinoff company is recalcitrant or financially insolvent or unwilling or unable to finish the massive and costly cleanup at the Dupont Pompton Lakes site.

Based on Dupont’s SEC 10K filing documents, EPA estimated that will cost at least $116 million – and very likely much more because we do not have the cost breakdown of how that cleanup cost estimate waste derived.

Liquid assets must be obtained by EPA before July 1, 2015, which EPA claimed was the effective date of the Chemours spinoff deal.

We understand that EPA is preparing a written response – we’ll keep you posted when we receive that.

I put a photo of former Gov. Brendan Byrne at the top of my post yesterday- and one of former Gov. Florio at the bottom – for a reason: to signal that Gov. Christie’s nomination of Bob Barr for the Pinelands Commission was a test of whether the Democrats would honor that 40 year legacy or go along with Governor Christie’s retaliatory scheme.

Today, we feature a photo of Pinelands Commissioner Jackson - first posted on Jan. 11, 2014 - a thoughtful, independent, and principled man of courage and integrity.

I’m sad to say that the Christie-crat faction of the Democratic Senate- led by Senate President Sweeney who attended the hearing and was working the room pressuring Senators for support – were a total cowardly disgrace to that legacy.

Senator Nia Gill

I was thrilled by – and applauded – Senator Gill’s principled opposition and her strong words, which invoked Gov. Christie’s outrageous disrespectful insult in not re-appointing Supreme Court Justice Wallace:

This is not about Mr. Barr. But, if you want to make it about Mr. Barr and his qualifications, … it is clear that he is not qualified.

The larger issue here, is that we are doing here today what Gov. Christie did to Justice Wallace.

We are saying that Mr. Jackson is qualified, but Mr. Jackson is independent.

When he [Gov. Christie] did it to Justice Wallace, we stood together – He is removing the only African American to ever sit on the Commission.

And thereby removing any diversity or other voice to come to the table.

If we were principled enough to stand with Justice Wallace, then we should be principled enough today to stand and not let this go forward.

This is about power. This is about saying that if you disagree with Gov. Christie, you will be removed. [...]

As a party of diversity, we will not vote to replace a person who represents not only diversity, but, like Justice Wallace, represents excellence, represents that ability to make an independent judgement.

That’s what Mr. Jackson does , and for that, you are asking us to cast this vote to ensure his removal.

We would not have cast a vote for the removal of Justice Wallace and we should not cast a vote here today in support of Mr. Barr and against all the principles that we stand for. Thank you. (huge sustained applause)

I was pleased by Senator Weinberg’s refusal to go along with what she called Gov. Christie’s attempt to tell Commissioner Jackson to “sit down and shut up”:

We are sending a message today that if you stand up and do something that this Governor doesn’t approve of, you are replaced or told to sit down and shut up.

Vote was 7-4 – Republicans mindlessly supported the Gov., with the exception of Republican Senator Bateman, who emphasized that he took his advise and consent role very seriously and felt that the Pinelands Commission was set up as an independent Commission. Bateman said:

I view this as stacking the deck when you don’t get the result you want. … I feel that there is a heavy hand being played here…. I just feel that this is wrong. We’re crossing the line and doing a disservice to the integrity of the Pinelands Commission.

Chairman Scutari voted no, as did Democrats Gill, Weinberg (I could not hear how Stack voted).

I was disappointed by Environment Committee Chairman Smith’s abstention – not exactly a profile in courage.

Same thing for Senator Lesniak [***see update below], who was conveniently out of town and ducked a controversial vote that was mis-framed as IBEW union jobs versus special interest environmentalists. Lesniak’s absence allowed Senator Van Drew – champion of both the pipeline and Mr. Barr – to sit in and be the swing vote in favor of Barr.

Games like this should be seen as a disqualification for any Gubernatorial ambitions – by Sweeney and Lesniak.

The only good that could come out of today’s disgrace would be a split in the Democratic party, with progressive Democrats using this as a pivot point to take control of the party and reject the Christie-Crat intimidation and crony politics of Sweeney.

Former NJ Supreme Court Justice Wallace – not re-appointed by Christie, but now hard at work as Chairman of the Joint Legislative Committee on Ethical Standards

Again, Senator Gill laid that eloquently and righteously right out on the line – what do Democrats stand for and who do they stand by?:

This is a very serious vote and I think it says a great deal about where we are as a party and what we stand for going forward.

It also says that there are some issues, where certain people – no matter what, no matter what qualifications they bring to the table – are expendable for larger political reasons – until they come back to your community and ask for your vote.

And that is what this also says to me.

We can either be fair weather friends, or we can be partners in a larger issue, in a larger struggle.

I see that they will come to our community for a vote, but when they have to vote for the principles upon which they espouse, then all of a sudden, we are expendable, no matter what our qualifications – be it Justice Wallace, or be it Mr. Jackson.

I will vote no..

Here’s my testimony in full: (I was speaking extemporaneously):

Good morning Mr Chairman and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity. My name is Bill Wolfe, I’m from Bordentown and I’m hear to oppose the nominee.

I want to make it clear at the outset that I think Mr. Barr is a fine man, that he’s done great public service, that he’s a good person.

What I say has nothing to do with Mr. Barr as an individual, other than, he comes to this committee in a large context.

Mr. Barr must be evaluated in context. That context is:

Mr. Barr is the Governor’s nominee.

This Governor has a pattern of retaliation and retribution when you cross his path.

This Governor has a policy of promoting gas in NJ, both at plants and through pipelines. His Energy Master Plan promotes that.

So you have a policy context that is very precise. And a we have a nominee that is selected to serve that agenda.

At the same time the candidate doesn’t have – what Tittel referred to as “intellectual curiosity” – but I would refer to as qualifications, experience, and knowledge, or even frankly interest throughout his life, on anything having to do with the Pinelands: history, cultural resources, natural resources, the Pinelands Management Plan – you name it.

I don’t think there’s anything in the record that shows he has qualifications – or even personal interest.

So, all this contextual baggage and Mr. Barr’s lack of qualifications put this committee on the spot: it’s now become a test of whether this committee will do the right thing on a non-partisan, non-ideoligical basis to preserve the integrity of the process, because the public expects the Judiciary Committee to advise and consent on the merits, not on the politics.

If you are inclined to vote in favor of this candidate, given his lack of qualifications and the context that I just touched upon – and I’d be glad to elaborate in much more detail – then I think you are putting your own Senate position and this Committee in public disrepute, because that’s how obvious everything that’s going on here is.

Therefore I would appeal to you to do the right thing. Don’t bend to the political arguments you may be hearing as to why this individual should be appointed.

And if you do favor his candidacy, then at least go on the record with some substantive explanation as to his qualifications and to some evidence you find in the record as to his qualifications.

Realize that your actions today will establish a new standard – whether a high standard or a low standard remains to be seen – on both the qualifications for a candidate and it will set a new standard for whether a Governor can retaliate against a sitting independent Commissioner for policy and political reasons.

I’d be glad to answer any of your questions – I’d love to enter into discussion with any of you if you have any differences with what I’ve had to say.

[***Update – I just got a note from a friend asking me to correct the harsh words on Senator Lesniak, claiming that Lesniak was with us on this, worked Committee members in our favor, and that he was innocently in Florida, that Sweeney took advantage of his absence and would not let Lesniak be seated today, even after he hurried to get back to NJ especially for this vote.

I find that an interesting story, but since I have no first hand knowledge of that, I will stick with what I wrote, which is my judgement based on what I do know, which obviously is not everything. Readers can judge for themselves if Lesnaik took a pass, or if Sweeney is even a bigger problem here. end update.]

Petulant ego of reporters and editors trumps public health and journalistic integrity

“Thanks to the courage and integrity of a DEP specialist speaking out, it is clear that New Jersey has abdicated its responsibility to protect the public from toxic sites,” stated Bill Wolfe, a former long-time DEP analyst. “Unfortunately, federal intervention will be necessary to make sure that this job is done right.” ~~~

But today’s Bergen Record story by Scott Fallon on the Garfield chromium disaster forces my hand and narrows my focus.

I have repeatedly criticized Fallon’s coverage of the Garfield chromium site, so it’s understandable that he would never give me a call or report on PEER’s work.

But Fallon’s petulance and petty ego have caused him to whitewash the story – again and again – as he did today with this totally misleading allusion to the site’s troubled history:

The pollution dates to 1983, when more than 3 tons of hexavalent chromium spilled into the ground from a tank at E.C. Electroplating, a small family-run business. Although only 30 percent of the metal solution had been recovered, the state Department of Environmental Protection allowed E.C. Electroplating’s contractors to suspend their cleanup in 1985 — a move DEP officials acknowledge was a mistake.

Note to Fallon: DEP didn’t make a one time, site specific, “mistake” on chromium in Garfield 30 years ago.

DEP scientists were aware of and had warned about Garfield – and scores of other chromium sites – continuously for YEARS.

Their warnings were ignored by DEP managers and suppressed for political reasons.

The chromium issue caused unusually public recriminations within the environmental agency. After a group convened to reconsider the cleanup standards recommended leaving them unchanged, one member, Zoe Kelman, a chemical engineer, wrote a 50-page dissent.

Several other agency scientists, speaking on condition of anonymity because they feared retribution, said that the Department of Environmental Protection had bent to political pressure to speed cleanups.

Ms. Kelman accused the agency of disregarding tests at one capped site, in Kearny, that found hexavalent chromium levels thousands of times higher than the agency plan had expected.

She also noted that while New Jersey sets the allowable level of hexavalent chromium in soil at 240 parts per million, Maryland’s standard is 30 parts per million, and Oregon’s is 23.

“I always feel the public believes we err on the side of protection, and it’s obvious now that we don’t,” Ms. Kelman said.

A 2004 investigation by the Newark Star-Ledger found that Honeywell Inc., PPG Industries and Maxus Energy Corporation, the companies responsible for the chromium pollution, spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on lobbying and millions of dollars on their own scientific studies to convince the state of New Jersey that its chromium standard was too stringent.

According to the investigation, when the lobbying effort began, New Jersey considered chromium levels in soil at 10 parts per million to be safe; by the end of the companies’ lobbying campaign the chromium standard was raised to 6,100 parts per million: one of the loosest standards in the country, allowing the companies to save millions on cleanup costs.

Despite what Mr. Fallon writes – and he must know this history – DEP’s failure is not limited to Garfield and it persisted for decades. It is unconscionable for Fallon to ignore all this, and basically give DEP credit for acknowledging their error.

After years of being ignored, marginalized, or told to just sit down and shut up, finally, one DEP employee had the courage and integrity to blow the whistle, almost 10 years ago now.

One key Kelman warning that is directly relevant to Garfield was this – risks from toxic chromium migration into building basements:

The 1998 criteria do not protect groundwater and surface water from chromium contamination. The leaching of chromium from soils into groundwater is a natural resource injury in and of itself. But it can also create a public health hazard; groundwater is a vector for the transport of hexavalent chromium and the contamination of additional soils and structures. Leachate evaporation at interfaces results in localized accumulations of highly enriched solid-phase hexavalent chromium on soil, building or other surfaces. The final report of the workgroup ignores the issue altogether; it proposes no soil standard to protect against leaching to groundwater.

Had PEER and Ms. Kelman’s warnings been taken seriously and given media attention by outlets like the Bergen Record, then perhaps unsafe exposures to chromium would have been averted 10 years sooner.

But now, they prefer to prance around and portray themselves as some kind of aggressive investigative watchdogs, writing crap like Fallon’s piece today, which whitewashed the fact that they - just like DEP – ignored huge health risks to residents and abdicated their responsibility for many years.

And in the meantime, heroic whistleblower’s careers have been destroyed as State officials retaliated for their honest and accurate warnings to the public.

And those state officials have not been held accountable – in a court of law or the court of public opinion.

And many other frustrated professionals, disgusted by political intervention in DEP science and regulatory decisions, are dissuaded from blowing the whistle, when they see the brave work of one of their colleagues ignored and their career destroyed.

Believe me, when the media and EPA ignore whistleblowers, that is exactly what the powerful corporations and political hacks that run DEP want.

And in the meantime, people are needlessly exposed to risks and the quality of their health and the environment are compromised.

This, dear readers, is the price of petulance and ego of a third rate reporter and his editors.

]]>http://www.wolfenotes.com/2015/02/media-whitewash-of-njs-toxic-chromium-coverup/feed/0Christie’s Controversial Pinelands Commission Nominee is Back Before Judiciary Committeehttp://www.wolfenotes.com/2015/02/christies-controversial-pinelands-commission-nominee-is-back-before-judiciary-committee/
http://www.wolfenotes.com/2015/02/christies-controversial-pinelands-commission-nominee-is-back-before-judiciary-committee/#commentsMon, 23 Feb 2015 13:54:13 +0000http://www.wolfenotes.com/?p=39197Bob Barr to Appear for the Third Time

Former Governor Brendan Byrne – champion of the Pinelands, signed the Pinelands Protection Act in 1979 (Princeton, 3/3/13)

The Pinelands deserve a Commissioner who would be a champion and advocate for the Pinelands, not just show up and vote as he’s told. ~~~ Carleton Montgomery, Executive Director, Pinelands Preservation Alliance

1) Lack of Leadership, qualifications, or interest in the Pinelands or preservation issues

We agree with Carleton Montgomery’s quote above – the Pinelands deserve leadership, and Bob Barr is not a leader on Pinelands or regional land use planning or conservation issues. I’ve seen nothing is his life experience or education that even suggests an interest in the Pinelands.

SJG legally appealed the Commission’s decision not to approve the MOA. That case currently is pending before the Appellate Division. The Court could remand the case back to the Commission for further consideration at any time.

Given the prior 7-7 deadlock, Barr’s appointment could determine the fate of the pipeline should the court remand or if SJG renegotiates a new MOA or pursues a waiver of strict compliance. The Senate and the Gov. should not be intervening in this matter until the case is resolved with finality.

Therefore, there is no way to avoid the obvious appearance that Barr is being installed to implement Gov. Christie’s policy.

This appearance compromises the independence of the Senate’s advise and consent role.

3) Close relationship with Senator Van Drew, who is championing Commission reconsideration of pipeline vote

Senator Van Drew strongly suppers the SJG pipeline, and is leading the charge to force the Commission to reconsider its prior vote not to approve it. Van Drew has publicly stated that Senate President Sweeney supports his work.

Barr has close political ties to Van Drew. creating as similar appearance problem.

Additionally, there is an appearance that Senator Sweeney could be twisting arms to support Barr, at best a very weak candidate, even without the SJG pipeline baggage.

4) Role as Treasurer of Cape May County Democratic Party – appearance of lack of independence and bias

Barr served as Treasurer to the Cape May County Democratic party.

In that capacity, according to ELEC records I have reviewed, he received funds and processed significant contributions, including biennial contributions of $37,000 from the IBEW, a union that strongly supports the pipeline and repowering of the BL England plant.

The fact that Barr is aware of the IBEW support of the pipeline and that he obviously is aware of their significant financial support for Cape May County Democrats, creates and appearance that he would not be independent and objective in his role as a Commissioner.

Former Governor Jim Florio. Governor Florio (who served in Congress from 1975 – 1990) shared his national perspective, noting that the Carter Administration and many in Congress – just like today – were concerned about the Nixon Administration’s energy policy, impacts of off shore drilling, and plans to run pipelines across the Pines to refineries along the Delaware River. This prompted Congress in 1978 to create the nation’s first National Reserve in the Pinelands. (Princeton, 3/3/13)

Report on Regulation of Chemicals Written By Dupont and United Water Corporate Hacks

We do a lot of work on issues of scientific integrity and how corporations “manufacture doubt” to undermine public health and environmental regulation, so we are obviously pleased that the New York Times put those issues in play today.

For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.

One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.

But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.

He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.

That is blatant conflict of interest and gross scientific misconduct. Dr. Soon is sure to be soon gone from the Smithsonian.

We could just have easily headlined that Report “NEW JERSEY HANDS DRINKING WATER SAFEGUARDS OFF TO UNITED WATER”.

Those efforts have been ignored by the NJ press corps, who seem to have more important things to write about, like the latest Christie scandal.

So, in light of the bright light on the issue created by the Gray Lady’s story today, perhaps an intrepid NJ reporter will understand the nature of the issue and feel emboldened by the paper of record to cover the issue right here in their backyard.

Let me lay it out for readers and intrepid journalists alike:

The DEP Science Advisory Board recommendation

There are hundreds of synthetic chemicals in our air and water that poison people and ecosystems that are not regulated. They are euphemistically referred to as “contaminants of emerging concern” by regulators.

DEP Commissioner Martin asked his hand picked Science Advisory Board to provide recommendations on whether and how to regulate these chemicals. Here’s how the SAB framed Commissioner Martin’s “charge topic” in their Final Report;

Issue

Numerous chemicals, some of which may be a potential risk to human or environmental health, are used every day in New Jersey (NJ) for industrial, commercial and household purposes. Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CEC) are those that present a concern for both hazard and exposure. A number of these chemicals may find their way into the State’s wastewater treatment facilities, receiving waters, aquifers and drinking water treatment facilities and other chemicals may be released to air or deposited in soils. CEC have raised concern around the world, as once released, these products pose a potential threat to biota and the environment. To address this issue specifically in New Jersey, the NJDEP Science Advisory Board (SAB) formed the CEC work group which was asked to investigate this issue.

It is recommended that the hazard assessment be conducted using a platform called METIS (Metanomics Information System) developed by DuPont. METIS is a chemical informatics platform that provides a screening level view of potential environmental fate and effects, human health concerns, andsocietal perception concerns.

Did you catch that?

The DEP SAB recommended a chemical hazard assessment method developed by Dupont, a chemical manufacturer that would be subject to the regulations of those chemicals.

But it gets worse.

The SAB Final Report was conveyed to DEP Commissioner Martin from a Rutgers University Professor, on Rutgers letterhead.

It is my pleasure to convey to you a report on Contaminants of Emerging Concern that has been approved by the Science Advisory Board. This report was written by a sub- committee of the Board, chaired by John Dyksen, with significant input from John Gannon. It was my great pleasure to be a part of this subcommittee.

Get that?

The SAB Report was written by two corporate officials, one from Dupont, who also happened to develop the chemical hazard assessment method, the other from a corporation that makes profits off water.

You must recuse yourself from deliberations on any subject matter in which you have a financial or other personal interest (“conflict of interest”). This means that when an issue or topic for consideration (“charge topic”) is identified by the NJDEP Commissioner to the SAB or Standing Committee, you must refrain from participating in any discussion of that charge topic (or issues that subsequently arise from that charge topic) and must immediately publicly disclose your conflict of interest and recuse yourself from that charge topic.

For purposes of the above restriction, “conflict of interest” means any financial or other interest which conflicts with the service of the individual because it 1) could significantly impair the individual’s objectivity or 2) could create an unfair competitive advantage for any person or organization. “Recusal” means the process by which a person is disqualified, or disqualifies himself or herself from a matter because of a conflict of interest.

With respect to Gannon (Dupont) and Dyksen (United Water) I particularly like this DEP example of a conflict of interest that requires recusal:

The SAB/SC member is employed (or self-employed) by an entity that is regulated by NJDEP or an entity that represents clients before NJDEP or the member is employed by an entity that comes before the NJDEP in a lobbying or other capacity and a charge topic is related to the member’s employment.

So, let’s apply that DEP SAB conflict of interest policy:

1. Dupont and United Water are regulated by the DEP.

2. The subject matter of the SAB Final Report involves the need for regulation of chemicals manufactured by Dupont and subject to costly treatment requirements by United Water.

3. It is so obvious that it almost goes without saying that Dupont has huge financial interests in DEP scientific and regulatory decisions about whether and how to regulate currently unregulated chemicals.

4. Dupont gains competitive advantage by advanced insider knowledge of the development of and an ability to influence DEP regulation.

5. A Dupont official has an obvious bias that would significantly impair his objectivity.

There are at least 4 blatant violations of the DEP SAB ethics restrictions on conflicts of interest.

Similarly, United Water has equally obvious significant economic interests in whether and to what degree DEP regulates currently unregulated chemicals. United Water has similar competitive advantage and bias/impaired objectivity problems.

After almost a year of foot dragging, this week DEP finally released water quality documents, originally requested in our April 25, 2014 Open Public Records Act request that DEP denied, regarding the impacts of Fenimore Landfill on nearby streams.

The DEP’s new water quality assessment directly contradicts years of prior studies, including the current legally binding 2012 “Impaired Waters List”required by the federal Clean Water Act.

Also, this study found that the Fenimore Landfill does not appear to be a major contributor to the impairment of the benthic macroinvertebrate communities in the downstream reaches of Drakes Brook covered by this investigation. This finding is based on the benthic macroinvertebrate sampling conducted at a station located on an unnamed tributary downstream of the landfill near Ledgewood Pond (DR-LB2) during this study which indicated a Good rating (including 30% sensitive taxa).

There are several red flag dead giveaway anomalies that jump right out of that incidental “also” conclusion, which was curiously tacked on to the Executive Summary, seemingly dangling there without a purpose, but ostensibly put in the Executive Summary so it could be readily found by the public and unknowing lay readers based on a cursory review (akin to press release rigor).

First, no other potential “major contributor” was specifically named and determined NOT to be a problem.

Aside from the subjective judgment required to determine what “major” means, the use of “does not appear” is a stock euphemism that is the DEP scientist’s way of saying “we lack data to support this conclusion” (implicitly which is being dictated by our hack managers for political reasons).

Third, curiously, in a study designed to identify the causes and sources of impairment, the DEP did additional sampling just below Fenimore landfill to rule out the landfill, which is the opposite of the study’s objective:

The purpose of these additional biological monitoring stations was to trace how far upstream from AN0311 the biological degradation was actually occurring, and to rule out contributing portions of the Drakes Brook sub-watershed as sources of stress to the stream biota.

Fourth, and this is the most important point and a smoking gun: when a water quality impairment is found, all major potential pollution sources, like landfills, are presumptively considered to be a contributing source. Because prior DEP field investigations verified visual observations of landfill leachate seeps at Fenimore, the only way to overcome this presumption is with conclusive sampling data from Fenimore leachate showing no pollutant levels of concern that could cause or contribute to the water quality impairment.

However, in an odd and significant departure from standard scientific and regulatory methods, the DEP did just the opposite: they concluded that Fenimore was NOT a pollution source based on NO DATA:

Nutrient and organic enrichment from the Quality Inn effluent and/or Fenimore landfill leachate: While the Quality Inn effluent and Fenimore landfill leachate were not directly sampled for this study, their effects on the benthic community at AN0311, at the time of this investigation, seem limited at best, based on results of stream nutrient and BOD sampling in the watershed. (@p. 24)

The DEP did not sample the Fenimore leachate seeps that their own prior field investigation determined were a potential source of the problem. Yet, without data, the DEP now concludes that Fenimore is NOT a problem.

Fifth, DEP tried to mask their deception.

Specifically: DEP ignored and omitted a current field investigation that identified the Fenimore Landfill as a major pollution source. While they ignore current negative findings, DEP reaches back 40 years to select very old data to create a false impression that all prior DEP concerns about Fenimore pollution are 40 years old (and thus not reliable or recent):

Additionally, this study finds that the Fenimore Landfill does not appear to be a major contributor to the impairment of the benthic macroinvertebrate communities in the downstream reaches of Drakes Brook covered by this investigation. This is based upon the benthic macroinvertebrate sampling conducted at a station located on an unnamed tributary upstream of Ledgewood Pond (DR-LB2) which indicated a Good rating (including 30% sensitive EPT taxa). This is contrary to previous NJDEP studies from 1975-76 which indicated significant degradation to Drakes Brook being caused by the landfill.

Last, DEP relies on and cites two studies that do not meet DEP’s own QA/QC requirements and are not germane to water quality (see studies cited in footnotes #14 and #16).

It is one thing for the DEP press office to spin information and sometimes even make embarrassing mistakes, like calling old landfill leachate seeps “natural”. The Press Office is staffed by reporters and their spin has no regulatory significance.

But, when DEP regulatory documents – funded by EPA and the basis of EPA delegated Clean Water Act programs – start spinning the data, then that is a completely different kettle of fish and is a serious problem. Follow me as I lay this all out.

The Fenimore Saga of Deceit

On October 15, 2011, before the controversial disposal and odor problems emerged, I toured the Fenimore landfill in Roxbury NJ. The landfill drains to a stream known as Drakes Brook.

I wasn’t out on a picnic – I began my career in DEP in 1985 in the solid waste program, was part of the team that wrote the first Statewide Landfill Closure Plan in the late 1980′s, was involved in developing DEP’s Watershed Planning initiative in the early 1990′s, and I subsequently drafted the environmental provisions of the 2004 Highlands Act. After leaving DEP in 2004, I then served as a consultant to the Highlands Coalition to lead the effort on participating in DEP’s drafting of the implementation rules.

1. Field Visit

On October 15, 2011, I walked the entire perimeter of the landfill and took a lot of pictures of many environmental problems I saw, including leachate seeps, solid waste, including old drums, in the woods and in streams, and negatively impacted streams. I posted some of those photos on October 16, 2011, under this note:

Highlands Hike – The Landfill Loop Trail

This article set me out to Roxbury for a field visit to the Fenimore Landfill for photos for a post on why the Highlands Act provided the Council with strong power to influence DEP cleanup of contaminated sites.

You find the darndest things hiking NJ trails – stuff like this:

While the issue has got zero media attention, the controversial Fenimore landfill is polluting not only the air, but nearby surface water (streams) and groundwater.

2. Sham Consultant’s Report claims “no impact”

Over 2 years after that first visit, after the Fenimore debate exploded, on April 16, 2014, I wrote a post that exposed false and misleading statements in a Roxbury Township’s consultant Report about the Fenimore landfill’s impact on the stream the landfill drains to, know as Drakes Brook. Specifically, that Report found:

Sampling of these streams as recent as March 2013 did not show any impacts from the landfill

I noted that that conclusion of ‘no impact” from the landfill was based on studies that had nothing to do with water quality and that it contradicted prior DEP conclusions that the Drakes Brook was impaired and that Fenimore landfill was a source of the problem. Read the entire post for the detailsand links to the documents.

Specifically, in a 2008 Ambient BioMonitoring Network Report, based upon data collected in 204, the DEP determined that Drakes Brook, at Emmans Road in Roxbury, was “moderately impaired” for the “aquatic life support” use designation.

In a subsequent intensive DEP field investigation Report to determine the causes and sources of impairment and pollution to Drakes Brook, “Stressor Indicators: In Search of a Cause”, DEP specifically identified Fenimore Landfill, including “many landfill leachate seeps” and a “leachate pond” as contributing to the impairment of Drake Brook.

… what neither the residents of Roxbury nor SEP knew was that state DEP biological monitoring data showed that the two streams running around the landfill were impaired. This Stressor Indicator report is based on sampling studies from 2009-2010 showing the deleterious impacts on aquatic life in the Drakes Brook watershed from Fenimore.

In that press release, we also criticized DEP’s unusual denial of our April 25, 2014 OPRA public records request for the DEP’s own water quality studies on Drakes Brook that showed that the stream was impaired and there were negative impacts from the landfill.

The PEER press release got covered in a June 25, 2014 Engineering NEws Report story “NJ Landfill Mired in Turmoil”, in which DEP press office was quoted as follows:

Wolfe says biological monitoring data shows that two streams running around the landfill were impaired. Had that information been made public, the Fenimore never would have received a re-opening permit from the DEP, the site would not have been declared a brownfield site, and the solar project would not have gone forward, Wolfe alleges. The report that includes the biological monitoring data from 2010 “is not a draft—it is being withheld because its findings are deeply embarrassing to the Christie people,” he says.

Ragonese denies that the draft report shows anything abnormal, and adds that the final report—part of a routine watershed analysis—will be released in coming weeks. Also this summer, NJDEP plans to put out a request for proposals to cap the site, and begin work on closing the landfill before the end of the year.

DEP’s political masters have pressured the DEP science an water quality assessment staffers to spin the data and absolve Fenimore landfill as a source of pollution. They reached this conclusion, which contradicted prior field investigations, based on no actual Fenimore leachate seep data – or groundwater monitoring data.

Because this is a federally funded and delegated program, we shall seek EPA Region 2 and EPA Inspector General review of this whole matter.